1. As a general rule, statutes are construed to avoid unreasonable results.

2. Judicial interpretation of statutes must be reasonable and sensible to effect legislative
design and intent.

3. The county provision under review which lists various acts constituting cruelty to animals
does not require that all enumerated acts of cruelty occur before there can be an action
under the provision.

Before PIERRON, P.J., RULON, J., and WILLIAM F. LYLE, JR., District Judge,
assigned.

PIERRON, J.: Dee Winter appeals her convictions of seven counts of cruelty to
animals pursuant to Sedgwick County Code § 5-191(a)(3). Winter argues there was
insufficient evidence to support her convictions. She also argues the use of the word
"and" in Sedgwick County Code § 5-191(a)(3) requires proof of failure to provide food,
potable water, protection from the elements, opportunity for exercise and other needed
care in order for someone to be convicted of cruelty to animals.

Due to the nature of this appeal, we will set out the underlying facts in detail.

On August 22, 1996, Sherdeill Breathett, Director of the Sedgwick County Animal
Control, inspected a dog kennel operated by Winter. Breathett found 7 dogs housed in
outdoor dog pens and 17 dogs living inside Winter's house. Winter was not present
during the inspection and the dogs were in the care of Winter's mother. Breathett's
inspection lasted approximately 45 minutes, of which approximately 10 minutes were
captured on videotape.

Breathett testified the drinking water in the outdoor dog pens was not clean.
This conclusion was based on the color of the water and bugs in the water thought to
be maggots. Breathett concluded the water was not drinkable for the dogs. He also
testified the pens were unclean and had fecal matter built up inside. He indicated there
was high grass surrounding the dog pens and no pathway to the pens. He stated that if
the animals were being given proper care, there would be a pathway due to the traffic.

Based on the condition of the water in the drinking bowls, the fecal matter in the
pens, and the high grass surrounding the pens, Breathett opined that Winter did not
make proper provisions for the care of the dogs. Winter was charged with 24 counts of
cruelty to animals, 15 counts of failure to show a dog license, and 15 counts of failure to
show a dog vaccination certificate or veterinarian's confirmation. Winter was convicted
of 20 counts of cruelty to animals and all the other charges. She only appealed the
convictions for cruelty to animals to the district court.

The district court held a trial de novo. Breathett testified about his inspection of
the kennel and the videotape. Winter testified she had raised and shown dogs for 20
years. She has also held various positions in the South Central Kansas Kennel Club.

Winter testified that in August 1996, there had been unusually heavy rain and
she had trouble keeping the grass mowed around the outdoor pens. She said it was
very muddy, the grass grew extremely fast, and she had trouble with her lawn mower.
Winter stated she normally cleans the outdoor kennels three times a week and during
those times, the dogs are allowed to run loose in her fenced-in back yard. She said she
had not cleaned the pens before the inspection because the rain and humidity had
given her an asthma attack.

Winter said she normally gives the dogs fresh water every day. But, again
because of the rains and her health problems, she was unable to water the dogs every
day. However, she claimed she checked to make sure that all of the dogs had water.
Winter said the only problem she has had with insects in the drinking bowls has been
with mosquito larvae, never maggots.

Joyce Reed testified she breeds and sells dogs and had known Winter for 15
years. She testified that during summer, she also had problems with grass and
mosquito larvae getting into the dogs' drinking water. Patty Sthole testified she had
known Winter for 5 years and had purchased a crate-trained puppy from her. Sthole
said the dog showed no signs of mistreatment.

Dr. Reed Harrison, a veterinarian, testified that Winter had been his client for
several years. Harrison had previously reviewed the videotape of Breathett's inspection
and concluded there was no evidence the dogs had been abandoned, neglected, or not
provided food, water, and adequate shelter. Harrison testified that the insects in the
drinking water were probably mosquito larvae and that the water had been there for 24
- 48 hours. He stated that mosquitos can carry heartworms to dogs; however, the
mosquito larvae do not present an immediate threat. He opined that all the conditions
relied on by Breathett did not indicate that the dogs had been neglected or not properly
cared for.

The district court upheld Winter's convictions for seven counts of cruelty to
animals for the seven dogs in the outside pens. The court found the dogs did not have
potable water and did not have adequate opportunity for exercise. The court stated the
water was under no circumstances adequate for the dogs to drink.

Winter argues there was insufficient evidence to support her convictions for
cruelty to animals.

When the sufficiency of the evidence is challenged in a criminal case, the
standard of review is whether, after review of all the evidence, viewed in the light most
favorable to the prosecution, the appellate court is convinced that a rational factfinder
could have found the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. State v.
Claiborne,
262 Kan. 416, Syl. ¶ 5, 940 P.2d 27 (1997).

Winter contends there was no expert testimony presented at trial that established
the water in the dogs' drinking dishes was not suitable for drinking. There were no
scientific tests conducted, and the only evidence was the visual observations of
Breathett. Winter argues she presented expert testimony from a veterinarian that the
bugs in the water were mosquito larvae which presented no immediate threat. She also
contends there was no evidence the dogs were dehydrated or denied water. Winter
claims the law requires the county to present proof that the drinking water was not
potable, rather than merely offering evidence of an inspection by a county animal
control official.

Winter also contends there was no evidence the dogs in the outside pens did not
have adequate exercise. She cites the veterinarian's testimony that it is not harmful for
the dogs to remain in kennels for 3 continuous days. Winter claims the county's charge
of inadequate exercise only applied to the dogs in the inside pens.

Sedgwick County Code § 5-191(a)(3) defines cruelty to animals in the following
manner: "Having physical custody of any animal and failing to provide such food,
potable water, protection from the elements, opportunity for exercise and other care as
is needed for the health or well-being of such kind of animal."

The district court weighed the testimony of Breathett and Harrison. The court
gave greater weight to Breathett's testimony because he did the inspection and he
observed the conditions in person. Winter would have us reweigh this testimony and
side with Harrison that the evidence did not indicate the dogs had been neglected. We
are prohibited from doing so.

"An appellate court does not reweigh the testimony or pass on the credibility of witnesses
but
accepts as true the evidence and all inferences to be drawn therefrom to support the findings of
the trial
court and disregards any conflicting evidence or other inferences that might be drawn therefrom."
State v.
Orr, 262 Kan. 312, Syl. ¶ 5, 940 P.2d 42 (1997).

There is sufficient evidence to support Winter's convictions. The evidence
established that the dogs' drinking water was unclean and discolored, and one bowl
contained some form of insect or parasite. The pens had not been cleaned for quite
some time and the grass around the pens indicated that no one had regularly checked
on the dogs. As the State points out, Winter's testimony also supports her convictions
in that she admits that due to rainy conditions and poor health, she had been unable to
clean the kennels, water the dogs, or mow the grass.

Last, Winter argues that in order to be convicted of cruelty to animals under
Sedgwick County Code § 5-191(a)(3), it is necessary to prove all the items listed in the
statutes. The district court held to the contrary.

Again, Sedgwick County Code § 5-191(a)(3) defines cruelty to animals in the
following manner: "Having physical custody of any animal and failing to provide such
food, potable water, protection from the elements, opportunity for exercise and other
care as is needed for the health or well-being of such kind of animal." (Emphasis
added.)

Through a simple application of the dictionary definition of the words "and" and
"or," Winter argues the State is required to prove all the items listed in Sedgwick County
Code § 5-191(a)(3).

Winter relies on several principles of statutory interpretation to support her
argument that the "and" in Sedgwick County Code § 5-191(a)(3) is used in a
conjunctive manner. First, when interpreting a statute, we must give effect to its plain
and unambiguous language, without determining what, in our view, the law should be.
See State v. Reed, 23 Kan. App. 2d 661, 663, 934 P.2d 157, rev. denied
262 Kan.
____ (1997). Second, it is the function of the court to interpret a statute to give it the
effect intended by the legislature. See In re Application of Zivanovic, 261 Kan. 191,
Syl.
¶ 1, 929 P.2d 1377 (1996). Last, penal statutes must be strictly construed in favor of
the accused. See State v. Cole, 238 Kan. 370, Syl. ¶ 2, 710 P.2d 25 (1985).

We are not persuaded by Winter's argument. Her application of Sedgwick
County Code § 5-191(a)(3) would lead to unreasonable or absurd results such as
individuals avoiding prosecutions by providing an animal with water, protection, and
exercise, but withholding food. "As a general rule, statutes are construed to avoid
unreasonable results. [Citations omitted.] There is a presumption that the legislature
does not intend to enact useless or meaningless legislation. [Citation omitted.]" City of
Olathe v. Board of Zoning Appeals, 10 Kan. App. 2d 218, 221, 696 P.2d 409 (1985);
see State v. Le, 260 Kan. 845, Syl. ¶ 4, 926 P.2d 638 (1996).

Furthermore, the rule that a criminal statute must be strictly construed in favor of
the accused is subordinate to the rule that "judicial interpretation must be reasonable
and sensible to effect legislative design and intent." State v. Taylor, 262 Kan. 471,
Syl.
¶ 5, 939 P.2d 904 (1997). Consequently, Winter's interpretation of Sedgwick County
Code § 5-191(a)(3) is rejected.

Affirmed.

1REPORTER'S NOTE: Previously filed as an unpublished
opinion, the Supreme Court
granted a motion to publish by an order dated September 16, 1998, pursuant to Rule
7.04 (1997 Kan. Ct. R. Annot. 44).